MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948773382 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.01119

Chromatin Architecture as an Essential Determinant of Dendritic Cell Function

2019· review· en· W2948773382 on OpenAlexafffund
Giselle M. Boukhaled, Mario Corrado, Hannah Guak, Connie M. Krawczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsChromatinDendritic cellFunction (biology)Cell biologyArchitectureCell functionBiologyComputational biologyCellImmunologyImmune systemDNAGeneticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetics has widespread implications in a variety of cellular processes ranging from cell identity and specification, to cellular adaptation to environmental stimuli. While typically associated with heritable changes in gene expression, epigenetic mechanisms are now appreciated to regulate dynamic changes in gene expression-even in post-mitotic cells. Cells of the innate immune system, including dendritic cells (DC), rapidly integrate signals from their microenvironment and respond accordingly, undergoing massive changes in transcriptional programming. This dynamic transcriptional reprogramming relies on epigenetic changes mediated by numerous enzymes and their substrates. This review highlights our current understanding of epigenetic regulation of DC function. Epigenetic mechanisms contribute to the maintenance of the steady state and are important for precise responses to proinflammatory stimuli. Interdependence between epigenetic modifications and the delicate balance of metabolites present another layer of complexity. In addition, dynamic regulation of the expression of proteins that modify chromatin architecture in DCs significantly impacts DC function. Environmental factors, including inflammation, aging, chemicals, nutrients, and lipid mediators, are increasingly appreciated to affect the epigenome in DCs, and, in doing so, regulate host immunity. Our understanding of how epigenetic mechanisms regulate DC function is in its infancy, and it must be expanded in order to discern the mechanisms underlying the balance between health and disease states.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207